Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Will 40k be "AoS"ed?

Short answer: No

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Someone been watching Yahtzee?

(I saw your comment come up on that exact video)

 kodos wrote:
40k become a very simple rule set?
It is already

Gah!
I am used to 40k since it is just a patched-up version of the same game I have played for decades but it is not a simple rule set.
Even Malifaux makes more sense for it's stat roles.
Again, I bring up Bolt Action which is a similar game and it seems positively elegant in comparison.
I wont even bother comparing with X-wing, my kids love the 40k models but like X-wing the game to play more (though Minecraft has pretty much taken over).

 Talizvar wrote:

I am used to 40k since it is just a patched-up version of the same game I have played for decades but it is not a simple rule set.

40k is a complex. difficult to read, overloaded rulebook but the rules them self are simple and would fit on a single page (we have once cut the whole thing down, removed everything which was not necessary and got 25 pages, including Special Rules, Scenarios, Psionic Powers and Fortifications)
Compared to AoS were all the unit special rules etc come with unit the core rules would fill the same or even less space if this would be done with the actual 40k rules.

And X-Wing even it has a smaller rule book, has more complex rules by it self than 40k (the whole movement stuff alone make it more complex)

I wont even bother comparing with X-wing, my kids love the 40k models but like X-wing the game to play more (though Minecraft has pretty much taken over).

My kids like the X-Wing models more but are not into gaming yet (Brick Wars and the Lego RPG games are a thing) although they like to paint the 40k models

 kodos wrote:
The question is, what do you mean by AoS?

...

40k become a very simple rule set?
It is already

This is true.

The core bits of AoS -- movement and combat -- are very similar to 40K.

On top of these basic rules in 40K there is a colossal and always growing heap of options, special rules, and new types of units with new options and more special rules. Formations add extra options and more special rules, with modified points costs.

 Talizvar wrote:

 kodos wrote:
40k become a very simple rule set?
It is already

Gah!
I am used to 40k since it is just a patched-up version of the same game I have played for decades but it is not a simple rule set.
Even Malifaux makes more sense for it's stat roles.
Again, I bring up Bolt Action which is a similar game and it seems positively elegant in comparison.
I wont even bother comparing with X-wing, my kids love the 40k models but like X-wing the game to play more (though Minecraft has pretty much taken over).

Playing Bolt action with 40k models seems like a good option to me. I like the Bolt Action rules. I think I heard they're working on a new edition promising to be better balanced and competitive as well. On the other hand, everytime I try to get back into 40k and put my little ork army to use, I remember why I gave up the last time. The basics aren't too bad, but the rulebooks are generally poorly organized and there's just so many exceptions and special rules. And you just end up rolling gobs and gobs of dice. And that's without even mentioning the cost of the books which ends up feeling like such a barrier to entry. At least AoS was on the right track with that.

 argonak wrote:

Playing Bolt action with 40k models seems like a good option to me.

Done this and it is ok, just has a problem to get every SciFi aspect working (you need to write a complete Mod which is much work than fix 40k by itself)

 kodos wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Playing Bolt action with 40k models seems like a good option to me.

Done this and it is ok, just has a problem to get every SciFi aspect working (you need to write a complete Mod which is much work than fix 40k by itself)

The real work is figuring out the algorithm of all those abilities and coming up with a "reasonable" points cost.
It is a pleasing thing to plug in those variables into a spread sheet and seeing if you come close to the same value.
It may be less work than you think if you can account for the WYSIWYG elements of each model.
You just need a comparative cost applied army to army but the value of a special rule like to be able to deep-strike really depends on how advantageous it is which would be rules / mechanics dependent.
Recalculating model / unit costs with 40k seems doable, it is our main issue at this time.
For instance, weapons in a "special weapons squad" cost different than in a normal "tactical squad" and is different on a character model.
Things like a lascannon has a base value that varies much like above (say like when "twin-linked").
GW could do all these tweaks rather readily but I think they have zero motivation to do so (at this time).

 Talizvar wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Playing Bolt action with 40k models seems like a good option to me.

Done this and it is ok, just has a problem to get every SciFi aspect working (you need to write a complete Mod which is much work than fix 40k by itself)

The real work is figuring out the algorithm of all those abilities and coming up with a "reasonable" points cost.
It is a pleasing thing to plug in those variables into a spread sheet and seeing if you come close to the same value.
It may be less work than you think if you can account for the WYSIWYG elements of each model.
You just need a comparative cost applied army to army but the value of a special rule like to be able to deep-strike really depends on how advantageous it is which would be rules / mechanics dependent.
Recalculating model / unit costs with 40k seems doable, it is our main issue at this time.
For instance, weapons in a "special weapons squad" cost different than in a normal "tactical squad" and is different on a character model.
Things like a lascannon has a base value that varies much like above (say like when "twin-linked").
GW could do all these tweaks rather readily but I think they have zero motivation to do so (at this time).

I just assumed one would use direct stand ins for an existing bolt action army. It'd be the simplest way.

Of course this would be simple and working, as long as no ones want to play Space Marines.

 Formosa wrote:

pm713 wrote:
My count's at five.

Why do people keep bringing this up?

possibly because sites like BolS (ocks) and spikey bits, nafka etc. all keep dropping click bait bull crap and people are too gullible to not realise its total BS.

Funny story, I just posted a comment in one of Spikey Bits articles a few days ago about the new Crimson Slaughter/Black Legion updates. They had re-posted almost the exact article with a slightly different title to make it look like they had more information, so I put in the comments "This is the same article from yesterday with a different title. Clickbait." That's it. Nothing more. They immediately took it down and banned me from their site. I've never had that happen before. I had always wondered why there were no comments on a ton of their articles, now I know why. F those guys. That was the most tame criticism, and they just shut it down immediately. Get on board with them, "keep it icy" as a "yes" man, or GTFO. There, said my peace.

 Homeskillet wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

pm713 wrote:
My count's at five.

Why do people keep bringing this up?

possibly because sites like BolS (ocks) and spikey bits, nafka etc. all keep dropping click bait bull crap and people are too gullible to not realise its total BS.

Funny story, I just posted a comment in one of Spikey Bits articles a few days ago about the new Crimson Slaughter/Black Legion updates. They had re-posted almost the exact article with a slightly different title to make it look like they had more information, so I put in the comments "This is the same article from yesterday with a different title. Clickbait." That's it. Nothing more. They immediately took it down and banned me from their site. I've never had that happen before. I had always wondered why there were no comments on a ton of their articles, now I know why. F those guys. That was the most tame criticism, and they just shut it down immediately. Get on board with them, "keep it icy" as a "yes" man, or GTFO. There, said my peace.

That's why its better to stay with a site like Dakka. Not like Dakka, with Dakka and nothing else.

 argonak wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Playing Bolt action with 40k models seems like a good option to me.

Done this and it is ok, just has a problem to get every SciFi aspect working (you need to write a complete Mod which is much work than fix 40k by itself)

The real work is figuring out the algorithm of all those abilities and coming up with a "reasonable" points cost.
It is a pleasing thing to plug in those variables into a spread sheet and seeing if you come close to the same value.
It may be less work than you think if you can account for the WYSIWYG elements of each model.
You just need a comparative cost applied army to army but the value of a special rule like to be able to deep-strike really depends on how advantageous it is which would be rules / mechanics dependent.
Recalculating model / unit costs with 40k seems doable, it is our main issue at this time.
For instance, weapons in a "special weapons squad" cost different than in a normal "tactical squad" and is different on a character model.
Things like a lascannon has a base value that varies much like above (say like when "twin-linked").
GW could do all these tweaks rather readily but I think they have zero motivation to do so (at this time).

I just assumed one would use direct stand ins for an existing bolt action army. It'd be the simplest way.

Isn't Warlord's Gate of Antares their stab at a sci-fi version of the Bolt Actions rules? Wouldn't that be better for a jumping off point of converting 40K armies?

Warlords Beyond the Gates of Antares, is the final version of the 40k skirmish gamer Rick Preistley wanted to write for 3rd ed 40k.(Apparently).

Unfortunately GW sales department forced the game devs to abandon the 3rd ed 40k skirmish rules they had been working on for years.And had them perform an' 11th hour rush job,' on the battle rules they actually published.

I think Rick said he used a WWII battle game rule set he was working on as the template for simplification the 3rd ed 40k battle rules.
(All the devs I spoke to said that errors were made in the rush to get the 3rd ed battle game rules to publishing in time.)

GW corporate management refused to let the devs correct the errors in the core rules with a complete re-write in 4th ed, 5th ed, and the last time in the 6th ed sneak release beta.

It is possible to write well defined intuitive rules for a 40k wargame.
BUT you have to define the intended scale and scope of the game first.

If GW plc were making vehicles.(A simple analogy using vehicles instead of types of war games.)

They used to make motor bikes, cars,, trains and airplanes.
And this wide range of vehicles were marketed to clearly defined customers.

Then GW sales department realized that cars were the best seller.

SO they decided to make a vehicle that was part motorbike part car, part train and part airplane.
Now they have one product everyone will buy! What could possibly go wrong?

Well people actually wanting a motor bike just bought motor bikes for other companies.
People who wanted cars just bought cars for other companies.
People who wanted trains just bought trains fro other companies
People who wanted airplanes just bought airplanes from other companies.

The only people who bought GW expensive over complicated mess of a vehicle, were those rich people who never go anywhere, and just look how cool it looks in their specially built garage.

That's...surprisingly accurate.

GW had a mass battle game with Titans in the form of EPIC.
But they killed that off and decided to shoe horn titans in 40k.

At first it was just in apoc, which was fine, as that needed a lot of points to play and was designed around titans. But then they decided to shove apoc elements in standard 40k, at much smaller point levels in a game that was already getting a bit heavy with the additions from 6th ed.
The result was...well, it was like trying to shove a watermelon into a rabbit. It didn't go well.

Its like the fable, the Man, the Boy and the Donkey - try to please all and you will please none.
40k is the donkey in this fable.

Thinking about it now, I would be oddly happy just pulling out chits from a cup for unit activation as a game change.
The "I go first and destroy you", is what got old the fastest.

Yeah, that's how it works in Antares.
Its an interesting system, but I'm a bit leery of it; its entirely possible to never get a chance to activate, as your dice may not come until the last minute.
It probably works better in practice, or there's a balancing mechanic that I'm not aware of, but that's my impression of it on paper.

I'm quite found of the UGOIGO system. Its simple and fair in concept, much like chess.
Its just that due to the introduction of powerful ranged weapons that ignore most saving throws, whoever goes first has a huge advantage that that system was not designed for.
Either UGOIGO or alpha strike; pick one.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, that's how it works in Antares.
Its an interesting system, but I'm a bit leery of it; its entirely possible to never get a chance to activate, as your dice may not come until the last minute.
It probably works better in practice, or there's a balancing mechanic that I'm not aware of, but that's my impression of it on paper.

I'm quite found of the UGOIGO system. Its simple and fair in concept, much like chess.
Its just that due to the introduction of powerful ranged weapons that ignore most saving throws, whoever goes first has a huge advantage that that system was not designed for.
Either UGOIGO or alpha strike; pick one.

I've been experimenting with an alternating turns system for a while now. Basically P1 movement, P2 movement, P1 Psychic, P2 Psychic, etc. with a combined fight subphase (didn't make sense to have two straight rounds of combat). The only real issue we see is that it tends to make assault even less powerful since each unit in combat is now only attacking once per turn instead of twice. It makes the game feel more reactive (even though it really isn't).

Chit pulls bring your units out in the end, anyway, which may or may not be an advantage.

Any alternative activation system could be put into an advanced rules section.

We have also tested a lot of different systems and how to change 40k.

What worked best for 40k size was either the Warpath/ modified SST System with alternate unit activation or the IGYG Phase System with a Action/Reaction System.

Pulling activation dice out of a bag like in Bolt-Action could make for some very interesting combinations in 40k. I'd be interested in trying that out.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, that's how it works in Antares.
Its an interesting system, but I'm a bit leery of it; its entirely possible to never get a chance to activate, as your dice may not come until the last minute.

The absolute worst that can happen is it becomes "I go you go" which would be very bad odds.
Quick outline how it works:
Each army has a color of dice, each army puts in as many dice as they have units.
They all get thrown into a bag or cup and without peeking, one die is drawn and that army can activate that unit.
The dice also have the added utility of saying what that squad is doing.
It is also easy to see who already went so you can try to destroy them before they get a shot off.
You keep pulling dice till every unit has activated and then they all get thrown into the bag/cup again.
Usually you do not have to wait long to get to do something.

It probably works better in practice, or there's a balancing mechanic that I'm not aware of, but that's my impression of it on paper.
I'm quite found of the UGOIGO system. Its simple and fair in concept, much like chess.
Its just that due to the introduction of powerful ranged weapons that ignore most saving throws, whoever goes first has a huge advantage that that system was not designed for.
Either UGOIGO or alpha strike; pick one.

The good thing is, you have a chance to activate a priority unit that needs to find cover or really needs to fire.
You (hopefully) do not need to wait for an entire army to get a shot at it before you can do anything.
It feels like a real gift when 3 units can do something one after the other.

 Talizvar wrote:
The good thing is, you have a chance to activate a priority unit that needs to find cover or really needs to fire.
You (hopefully) do not need to wait for an entire army to get a shot at it before you can do anything.
It feels like a real gift when 3 units can do something one after the other.

Ah, so there's a reaction mechanic, that allows you to activate a unit without relying on chance? That's a nice feature.

Ths interesting that AoS not get a point System made by GW....

So the big AoSing for 40k becomes not that possible

I don't think that necessarily follows.

If 40K were to be AoSified, GW could adapt the point system independently created for Aos to the Age of Emporer units, because there would be a strong similarity between the two games.

Why should they do that anyways? one of the Biggest seelingpoints of AoS was the missing point system.

This seems to be a failed experiment made by GW

 _ghost_ wrote:
Why should they do that anyways? one of the Biggest seelingpoints of AoS was the missing point system.

This seems to be a failed experiment made by GW

Actually no points was one of the biggest turn offs, by bringing points back they hope people who left will return but it's too late they've tasted freedom and won't return to GW with their shoddy game design and overpriced models.

hobojebus wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Why should they do that anyways? one of the Biggest seelingpoints of AoS was the missing point system.

This seems to be a failed experiment made by GW

Actually no points was one of the biggest turn offs, by bringing points back they hope people who left will return but it's too late they've tasted freedom and won't return to GW with their shoddy game design and overpriced models.

Seriously. Had AoS had a points system, people would still be pissed they killed WHFB, but more people would have given it a try.
Having no points is what made it such a hard sell. It's not even a game at that point, it's just taking guys out and going "pew pew!"